![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There should be somewhat more about the development of examinations. Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The National Archives page at [1] or links therefrom should be added as appropriate. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
From 1926 to 1980, there were 2 types of schools : which ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.209.57 ( talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) What exam did children take till the 1960s at the end of primary school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.209.57 ( talk) 16:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC) What sorts of schools disappeared in the 1980s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.214.1.209 ( talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Reading the sources for Frederick William Sanderson brings home the point that there's a whole missing side to this article. Whilst it lists and discusses the legislation, and forms a history of education legislation in England, it doesn't discuss the reformist movements (such as the Committee on the Neglect of Science blaming Britain's lack of success in WW1 on poor science education, mid-war); the various investigations, government and private committees, and things like the Hadow Reports; and the economic and social pressures that motivated reform, from the Victorian period onwards. There's a fair amount of stuff on these in the history books. Uncle G ( talk) 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
There are two things about this article that worry me. The first is the naming of 'Rab' Butler. Certainly that was his nickname but it was based on his initials and was never his actual name. Would it not be better at the first mention of him in the article to provide his full name Richard Austen Butler, known as RAB?
The second thing that jumps out is the last "The 1944 Act should have been brought into effect as from September 1939; it was not implemented because of the effects of the Second World War, but was eventually enforced from April 1947". It makes no sense. How can an Act passed in 1944 have been intended to commence five years earlier? What I assume the author was trying to say was the passing of the Act was shelved because of more pressing business occupying Parliamentary time, thus the implementation of its new elements was delayed until April 1947, after hostilities had ceased... or words to that effect? Moonraker55 ( talk) 19:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Everything from # Labour, from 1997 to 2010, is written in the future tense, and predictions need to be evaluated against reality - any takers? ClemRutter ( talk) 23:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of education in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of education in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.tmag.co.uk/extras/history_of_Technical_Education_v2.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I've removed from the article an uncited claim that Voluntary Controlled Schools (ie. absorbed into the state system, with some remaining notional CofE involvement, eg. the local vicar sitting on the Board of Governors alongside the LEA appointees) received two-thirds state funding and that Voluntary Aided Schools (Board of Governors much more independent, with control over admissions, staffing, curriculum etc - basically the ancestors of today's Faith Schools) received one third funding.
Everything else I read on this - the Anthony Howard and Michael Jago biogs of Rab Butler, and the books cited in articles on voluntary schools - says that VC schools were fully funded by the taxpayer, and that VA schools had their running costs met and 50% of capital works paid for (the percentage is higher nowadays).
I fully realise that (a) writers copy one another without checking every last detail and that (b) these numbers may very well have been oversimplified versions of what may in practice have been complicated funding formulae, with many local exceptions etc. However, I really don't see any contortion of arithmetic by which the uncited claims in the article can be reconciled with the details in other books.
Feel free to get a discussion going or add back if a proper citation can be found. Paulturtle ( talk) 12:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The Butler Act did not introduce the split into grammar schools, secondary moderns, and technical schools. There is no reference to anything on these lines in the Act. There's an article here pointing that out. If I recall correctly, it was a departmental circular of the Attlee government that strongly encouraged LEAs to adopt that system. The only tripartite system in the Butler Act was the division into Primary, Secondary, and Further education. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I think there needs to be a bit more information about the use of Latin in education in this article. As I understand it, most education was through the medium of Latin in schools until 1600-1650s, when it began to wane. That is to say, until quite late, pupils learnt Latin, spoke Latin, wrote or delivered oral examination in Latin. Latin was the medium of University education in this period, and subject-depending, continued to be for some time. It waned more quickly than in many other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, where Latin was the medium of much education into the 1800s. The shift away from Latin as a spoken to purely written or read language was also controversial, not least because it gave worse results in terms of Latin competence according to many educationalists at the time.
I have a few sources for this but they aren't especially modern (nineteenth and early twentieth century) so if anyone has any pointers for further info on this topic please do let me know before I start editing. Jim Killock (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There should be somewhat more about the development of examinations. Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The National Archives page at [1] or links therefrom should be added as appropriate. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
From 1926 to 1980, there were 2 types of schools : which ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.209.57 ( talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) What exam did children take till the 1960s at the end of primary school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.209.57 ( talk) 16:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC) What sorts of schools disappeared in the 1980s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.214.1.209 ( talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Reading the sources for Frederick William Sanderson brings home the point that there's a whole missing side to this article. Whilst it lists and discusses the legislation, and forms a history of education legislation in England, it doesn't discuss the reformist movements (such as the Committee on the Neglect of Science blaming Britain's lack of success in WW1 on poor science education, mid-war); the various investigations, government and private committees, and things like the Hadow Reports; and the economic and social pressures that motivated reform, from the Victorian period onwards. There's a fair amount of stuff on these in the history books. Uncle G ( talk) 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
There are two things about this article that worry me. The first is the naming of 'Rab' Butler. Certainly that was his nickname but it was based on his initials and was never his actual name. Would it not be better at the first mention of him in the article to provide his full name Richard Austen Butler, known as RAB?
The second thing that jumps out is the last "The 1944 Act should have been brought into effect as from September 1939; it was not implemented because of the effects of the Second World War, but was eventually enforced from April 1947". It makes no sense. How can an Act passed in 1944 have been intended to commence five years earlier? What I assume the author was trying to say was the passing of the Act was shelved because of more pressing business occupying Parliamentary time, thus the implementation of its new elements was delayed until April 1947, after hostilities had ceased... or words to that effect? Moonraker55 ( talk) 19:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Everything from # Labour, from 1997 to 2010, is written in the future tense, and predictions need to be evaluated against reality - any takers? ClemRutter ( talk) 23:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of education in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of education in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.tmag.co.uk/extras/history_of_Technical_Education_v2.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I've removed from the article an uncited claim that Voluntary Controlled Schools (ie. absorbed into the state system, with some remaining notional CofE involvement, eg. the local vicar sitting on the Board of Governors alongside the LEA appointees) received two-thirds state funding and that Voluntary Aided Schools (Board of Governors much more independent, with control over admissions, staffing, curriculum etc - basically the ancestors of today's Faith Schools) received one third funding.
Everything else I read on this - the Anthony Howard and Michael Jago biogs of Rab Butler, and the books cited in articles on voluntary schools - says that VC schools were fully funded by the taxpayer, and that VA schools had their running costs met and 50% of capital works paid for (the percentage is higher nowadays).
I fully realise that (a) writers copy one another without checking every last detail and that (b) these numbers may very well have been oversimplified versions of what may in practice have been complicated funding formulae, with many local exceptions etc. However, I really don't see any contortion of arithmetic by which the uncited claims in the article can be reconciled with the details in other books.
Feel free to get a discussion going or add back if a proper citation can be found. Paulturtle ( talk) 12:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The Butler Act did not introduce the split into grammar schools, secondary moderns, and technical schools. There is no reference to anything on these lines in the Act. There's an article here pointing that out. If I recall correctly, it was a departmental circular of the Attlee government that strongly encouraged LEAs to adopt that system. The only tripartite system in the Butler Act was the division into Primary, Secondary, and Further education. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I think there needs to be a bit more information about the use of Latin in education in this article. As I understand it, most education was through the medium of Latin in schools until 1600-1650s, when it began to wane. That is to say, until quite late, pupils learnt Latin, spoke Latin, wrote or delivered oral examination in Latin. Latin was the medium of University education in this period, and subject-depending, continued to be for some time. It waned more quickly than in many other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, where Latin was the medium of much education into the 1800s. The shift away from Latin as a spoken to purely written or read language was also controversial, not least because it gave worse results in terms of Latin competence according to many educationalists at the time.
I have a few sources for this but they aren't especially modern (nineteenth and early twentieth century) so if anyone has any pointers for further info on this topic please do let me know before I start editing. Jim Killock (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)